Do you prefer them big and heavy or svelte and light?

That's quite a coincidence, since that is exactly the camera I had in mind to replace the Isolette. Only problem is the cost. They're not cheap but I'm not in a particular hurry so I'm keeping my eye out for a good deal. It doesn't have that classic folder look but it's a nice blend of old and new(er).

 

It's great that your father's equipment will be passed on to one of his own and that it will be appreciated. I try to keep my collection limited since I know my kids won't be that interested in it and will be just extra work for them to deal with.

 

Is it pocketable or a little too tall/wide for that? The Isolette will fit in my pants pocket but its presence there is definitely felt. :)

I haven't seen the Fuji in quite awhile, but I don't recall it being something that would fit in a pocket. The rangefinder part of the camera is pretty tall, but while that might keep it out of a pocket, it also makes it about as far from "squinty" as one can get. So, while the camera probably wouldn't fit in a pocket (unless you're The Artful Dodger) it would be a snap to travel with.

The one thing to watch out for with these cameras is that the material the bellows were made from seems to develop pinhole leaks, not from wear but from environmental factors (like all of those "leatherettes" that fell apart). The good news is that there are folks making bellows specifically for them. I forget where, but I researched it a couple of years ago.

The other good news is that image quality is stellar. Fuji makes great lenses and the rangefinder is easy to focus and accurate. I'm really looking forward to getting my father's in hand and putting it to work.

Speaking of my father and our relationship in photography - his interest sparked mine when I was quite young and by age 8 I was wandering around with an old Kodak rangefinder and a Weston meter. Over the years my father stopped shooting, but in the 80s my seriously renewed interest sparked his own and he went back into photography full-bore. It turned out to be something that deepened the bond between us and we spent many happy days going out shooting together and talking photography in between, even though we lived several hundred miles apart.

Another Fujica to look for is the GS645 S. It has a wider 60mm f 4 (equivalent focal length in 35mm format is about 38mm) It has a coupled rangefinder and leaf shutter that goes to 1/500 second and match diode metering. Doesn't fold up, but still not too heavy. Can use both 120 and 220 film.

 

...

 

Speaking of my father and our relationship in photography - his interest sparked mine when I was quite young and by age 8 I was wandering around with an old Kodak rangefinder and a Weston meter. Over the years my father stopped shooting, but in the 80s my seriously renewed interest sparked his own and he went back into photography full-bore. It turned out to be something that deepened the bond between us and we spent many happy days going out shooting together and talking photography in between, even though we lived several hundred miles apart.

[ATTACH=full]1302567[/ATTACH]

There's been a number of old cameras that have passed through my hands the last few years. Some I got from the original owners who had long since moved on to more modern cameras. But others were from kids who were selling things of their parents or even grandparents. Some I purchased on ebay were listed as being from estate sales and others had been donated to Goodwill.

I've often wondered about the previous owners and the pictures that the cameras took. Were they used a lot? Did they sit in a closet? It's a little sad in a way, so that's why your story is such a nice one.

There's been a number of old cameras that have passed through my hands the last few years. Some I got from the original owners who had long since moved on to more modern cameras. But others were from kids who were selling things of their parents or even grandparents. Some I purchased on ebay were listed as being from estate sales and others had been donated to Goodwill.

 

I've often wondered about the previous owners and the pictures that the cameras took. Were they used a lot? Did they sit in a closet? It's a little sad in a way, so that's why your story is such a nice one.

Yes, one does wonder about the history of an older camera. A year or so ago (for some unknown reason) I got the bug for a Leicaflex and bought two, a chrome SL and a black chrome SL-2 "50 Jahre". I couldn't find out much about the SL, but the guy I got the Sl-2 from said he'd found it in his father's basement when clearing out after his passing (it smelled musty for quite awhile in verification of that!). The odd part is that the seller said he had not recollection of ever seeing the camera when he was growing up and the condition indicated it had either never been used or almost never. The same was true of the SL as it hadn't scratch on it. I find it hard to imagine spending as much as those cameras cost at the time and not using them, but I suppose I should be grateful for it! I'm afraid I've developed a little obsession with the SL-2 of late, so perhaps the "unused" condition will be less apparent in awhile. I buy them to use them...

Leicaflex SL and SL-2 by fiddlefye, on Flickr

Sometimes one does know the exact history of a camera, though.

My two Hasselblad 500C/Ms came from a friend when he retired from the portrait photographer business due to failing eyesight. He had sold of most of his gear, but could only part with his favourite bits (the two bodies, two backs, prism and waistlevel finders and a 100mm f3.5 Planar) by giving them to someone he liked who he knew would look after and use them.

A Speed Graphic set I bought many years ago came in a big hard case with lots of goodies and examples of the previous owner's work - he had shot the print ads for Lazy Boy!

I saw a Leicaflex in the used cabinet of a camera shop.

I was soooooo tempted.

But my wife would have killed me. ANOTHER CAMERA !!! And it isn't even a Nikon !!! :mad:

Yes, she could recognize the brands, so I could not sneak it in.

Besides, she pays the credit card bills, so would catch me anyway.

I saw a Leicaflex in the used cabinet of a camera shop.

I was soooooo tempted.

But my wife would have killed me. ANOTHER CAMERA !!! And it isn't even a Nikon !!! :mad:

Yes, she could recognize the brands, so I could not sneak it in.

Besides, she pays the credit card bills, so would catch me anyway.

My wife is an artist and quilter. She buys stuff. We have an agreement. ;) That and I make a point of never buying any gear I can't turn over at a profit if need be. That keeps her happy as well.

I'm really enjoying working with the Leicaflexes, especially the Sl-2 since I got the prism resilvered. It is hefty, but handles beautifully. The finder and control interface are things of joy. I love my Nikons (FE, F2S and F4), but the Leicaflexes are a whole different sensual experience.

I'm really enjoying working with the Leicaflexes, especially the Sl-2 since I got the prism resilvered. It is hefty, but handles beautifully. The finder and control interface are things of joy. I love my Nikons (FE, F2S and F4), but the Leicaflexes are a whole different sensual experience.

That is what I am afraid of, another rabbit hole to fall into.

I like'em big & chunky, most of the time.

(Photo courtesy of Hans Zijffers)

[ATTACH]1302611[/ATTACH]

I like'em big & chunky, most of the time.

(Photo courtesy of Hans Zijffers)

I had one of those (the camera...). It was a very interesting contraption to work with, to say the least!

That is what I am afraid of, another rabbit hole to fall into.

Oh, I definitely understand. I think I've fortunately managed to hold the line at the two Leicaflexes and the 50mm Summicrons that came with them. Sure, a 90 Summicron and a wide angle would be nice, but I've other systems that already cover that nicely for me. The thing about the SL-2 is the pleasure I get from actually using it as much as the work it does for me. The finder is wonderful, the feel is unique. Those alone are worth the small investment I have involved.

The thing about the SL-2 is the pleasure I get from actually using it as much as the work it does for me. The finder is wonderful, the feel is unique. Those alone are worth the small investment I have involved.

Aye, but thats the rub, innit? ;)

One photographer's "small investment" is another photographers "oh, HAIL no" investment. I've wanted a Leicaflex SL2 since they were first introduced (and I was barely 15). But the cost has always been an impediment: first when they were unattainable new, then later when they dropped within reach but the de-silvering issue put me off. I almost pulled the trigger on a nice affordable SL2 body last month, but then checked the prices of even the cheapest beat-up Summicrons. Forget that: I should have bought one before Sony debuted the A7 mirrorless (and drove prices of all once-reasonable premium lenses back into the stratosphere). In case I ever do succumb, who did you get to do the re-silvering task? Was it normal expensive or hella expensive?

Hopefully if I ever get an SL2, it will live up to my memories/expectations. Some years ago I finally bought the Leica CL/40/90 kit I'd always wanted, and promptly resold it. Beautifully made camera and jewel lenses, but could not get a sharp photo from them to save my life. Too many decades with SLR, TLR, and scale focus slow-lens 35s, I guess: RF focusing fast lenses just didn't work for me. Pity.

Aye, but thats the rub, innit? ;)

 

One photographer's "small investment" is another photographers "oh, HAIL no" investment. I've wanted a Leicaflex SL2 since they were first introduced (and I was barely 15). But the cost has always been an impediment: first when they were unattainable new, then later when they dropped within reach but the de-silvering issue put me off. I almost pulled the trigger on a nice affordable SL2 body last month, but then checked the prices of even the cheapest beat-up Summicrons. Forget that: I should have bought one before Sony debuted the A7 mirrorless (and drove prices of all once-reasonable premium lenses back into the stratosphere). In case I ever do succumb, who did you get to do the re-silvering task? Was it normal expensive or hella expensive?

 

Hopefully if I ever get an SL2, it will live up to my memories/expectations. Some years ago I finally bought the Leica CL/40/90 kit I'd always wanted, and promptly resold it. Beautifully made camera and jewel lenses, but could not get a sharp photo from them to save my life. Too many decades with SLR, TLR, and scale focus slow-lens 35s, I guess: RF focusing fast lenses just didn't work for me. Pity.

I got the resilvering done in London.UK and the cost was about $60CAN, including the return shipping. It took them a few months to get to it, but given it is scarcely my only camera I could still take pics.

Lens prices have taken a hike for sure. Many of them are going for much more than what they sold for back in the heyday of film on the 80s. All I can say is I'm glad i stocked up when I did. Same goes for a lot of things, LPs, turntables.... good to be ahead of the curve or an out-of-step Luddite (take your pic).

Forty years ago as a teen I started with small and light: a Voigtlander Vito II folder inherited from my Dad, and then a shiny new Olympus OM-1n for HS graduation. The OM-1n got swapped for a Pentax MX, then a Pentax ME, then finally back to another OM-1n (black this time). Eventually I was able to afford a used Nikon F2AS, and after that I kinda never looked back. For a long while I alternated between an FM and the F2AS, because the FM was so much more discreet for the street and subway shoots I was doing.

But the day came when I had to admit the F2 bodies felt like an organic part of me and the FM didn't, and I started binge buying different F2 variations (and a couple original F bodies just for good measure). They've been my mainstay for most of my 35mm shooting, with occasional diversions to a Konica T3 (with its wonderful 50/1.4 Hexanon), Pentax Spotmatic SPII, or back to OM-1n. As I get older, I really wish the F2 could weigh as little as the OM-1n, but no genie has appeared to make that happen (if anything, moving to digital with the D700 led to an even more enormous heavy camera: at first I could not believe the damned thing was actually twice the size of an F2AS).

Fifteen years ago when medium format pros flooded eBay with Hasselblads for pennies on the dollar, I got into those. Which led to the Mamiya TLR system, and then finally this year to the huge ungainly Mamiya Press 6x9. I love 'em all, the bigger the better, even tho it won't be long now before one of them puts me in traction. Someday I'll inevitably be forced to reduce everything down to a portable Fuji X or Olympus M43 kit- but not yet!

MF folder for lazy carrying in my case: Agfa Super Isolette (inherited). - Not my dream camera, to burn several rolls per day.

35mm SLRs: I'm usually in the middle of the road. I don't see a reason to pick ultra compact Pentax MX or plastic bodies over something mid sized like Spotmatic / KX / K1000. - If I was into Nikon, I'd be fine with an F2.

I'm probably bulk ignorant. - I don't mind rigid hoods on my lenses.

Lens weight is a big issue for me. I'm not eager to get hold of Canon's 35/1.4 & 85/1.2 or even a 200/2 for that reason. Walking a trinity of f2.8 zooms is pretty low on my list either. So far I have a 70-200/2.8 and agree with others that it shouts for a bigger camera with battery grip / winder. But it is also so heavy that i can't spend an entire shift shooting it.

I probably would still take my chimney findered C330 out, instead of buying tele- & WA Rolleiflexes, even if I had the money for the latter. But my Linhofs never turned into walk around cameras.

Ultra compact stuff like digital P&Ss, anything else smaller than a Retina II, never really turned me on

Aye, but thats the rub, innit? ;)

 

One photographer's "small investment" is another photographers "oh, HAIL no" investment. I've wanted a Leicaflex SL2 since they were first introduced (and I was barely 15). But the cost has always been an impediment: first when they were unattainable new, then later when they dropped within reach but the de-silvering issue put me off. I almost pulled the trigger on a nice affordable SL2 body last month, but then checked the prices of even the cheapest beat-up Summicrons. Forget that: I should have bought one before Sony debuted the A7 mirrorless (and drove prices of all once-reasonable premium lenses back into the stratosphere). In case I ever do succumb, who did you get to do the re-silvering task? Was it normal expensive or hella expensive?

 

Hopefully if I ever get an SL2, it will live up to my memories/expectations. Some years ago I finally bought the Leica CL/40/90 kit I'd always wanted, and promptly resold it. Beautifully made camera and jewel lenses, but could not get a sharp photo from them to save my life. Too many decades with SLR, TLR, and scale focus slow-lens 35s, I guess: RF focusing fast lenses just didn't work for me. Pity.

I got lucky in that both my SL and SL-2 came with 50 Summicrons and leather cases, all in terrific condition apart from some desilvering in the SL-2. I was just perusing ebay listings for the Leicaflexes and came in for a bit of a shock. Somehow in the year and half since I bought my SL and SL-2 prices have gone through the roof. The cheapest listing was for a beater body (no lens or case) listed as "parts only" and the starting price was over twice what I paid for my mint "50 Jahre" SL-2 (with lens and case). Prices in general was between four and six times what they were 18 months ago. Yikes... what's with that?

I think its a combination of factors.

Sooner or later, everything ever breathed on by Leica skyrockets, and the reflex bodies were about the only thing left that had stubbornly remained bottomed out since the digital transition. For a surprisingly long time, buyer sanity prevailed with the reflexes: models made after the SL2 had arcane electronic problems, while the Standard, SL, and SL2 were notorious money pits once shutter repairs became necessary. Given the reflexes historically did not appreciate to the truly absurd values people ascribe to the rangefinders, it was harder to justify the equally demented repair costs and wait lists (people will grudgingly tolerate the likes of Sherry Krauter to overhaul an M3 that appreciates every twenty minutes and has unequaled hipster cred, but not for a reflex unrecognized as Leica jewelry by anyone under the age of 50). This kept the reflex prices in check.

The R lenses were then pulled from the ash heap and put on an inflation death spiral by the same evolving digital camera market that had initially devalued tham. You had a nice window for a while when glass like the 50/2 Summicron R could be had affordably, but it started closing once Canon released the 5DII and plagued the world with a horde of wannabe Roger Deakins. Prices began climbing, but were still realistic until the Sony A7R killed the dream forever. Pissed off Leica RF fanatics, disappointed by the crappy performance of popular M lenses on Sony sensors, suddenly remembered "Hey, wasn't there a line of Leitz retrofocus reflex lenses we all sneered at for decades? Let's all march in unison to eBay now and bid them into orbit, because heaven forbid we consider using the (shudder) modern Zeiss lenses optimized for the A7R, or pay Leica's ransom for an M9 or M10".

Every digital camera system that is compatible with older film-era lenses eventually inspires a subgroup of owners to seek out corresponding film bodies when they get the film bug. With the Sony A7 series getting more popular year after year, more and more adapted R lens fanciers are rediscovering the Leica reflexes. The newer models don't turn their crank, but their eyes light up when they see the staggeringly overbuilt, all-mechanical SL and SL2. And so the era of rampant Leicaflex inflation is upon us. Two years ago, you could find a nice SL2 body for less than a minty Nikon FM2. Today, it costs more than a mint Nikon F2AS. Next year, it may creep up to M2-M3-M4 level.

I think its a combination of factors.

 

Sooner or later, everything ever breathed on by Leica skyrockets, and the reflex bodies were about the only thing left that had stubbornly remained bottomed out since the digital transition. For a surprisingly long time, buyer sanity prevailed with the reflexes: models made after the SL2 had arcane electronic problems, while the Standard, SL, and SL2 were notorious money pits once shutter repairs became necessary. Given the reflexes historically did not appreciate to the truly absurd values people ascribe to the rangefinders, it was harder to justify the equally demented repair costs and wait lists (people will grudgingly tolerate the likes of Sherry Krauter to overhaul an M3 that appreciates every twenty minutes and has unequaled hipster cred, but not for a reflex unrecognized as Leica jewelry by anyone under the age of 50). This kept the reflex prices in check.

 

The R lenses were then pulled from the ash heap and put on an inflation death spiral by the same evolving digital camera market that had initially devalued tham. You had a nice window for a while when glass like the 50/2 Summicron R could be had affordably, but it started closing once Canon released the 5DII and plagued the world with a horde of wannabe Roger Deakins. Prices began climbing, but were still realistic until the Sony A7R killed the dream forever. Pissed off Leica RF fanatics, disappointed by the crappy performance of popular M lenses on Sony sensors, suddenly remembered "Hey, wasn't there a line of Leitz retrofocus reflex lenses we all sneered at for decades? Let's all march in unison to eBay now and bid them into orbit, because heaven forbid we consider using the (shudder) modern Zeiss lenses optimized for the A7R, or pay Leica's ransom for an M9 or M10".

 

Every digital camera system that is compatible with older film-era lenses eventually inspires a subgroup of owners to seek out corresponding film bodies when they get the film bug. With the Sony A7 series getting more popular year after year, more and more adapted R lens fanciers are rediscovering the Leica reflexes. The newer models don't turn their crank, but their eyes light up when they see the staggeringly overbuilt, all-mechanical SL and SL2. And so the era of rampant Leicaflex inflation is upon us. Two years ago, you could find a nice SL2 body for less than a minty Nikon FM2. Today, it costs more than a mint Nikon F2AS. Next year, it may creep up to M2-M3-M4 level.

Spot on. I'm just glad I was a bit ahead of the curve and can assuage my curiosity about the SL series bodies. I didn't need either of them, but the prices were such that I could manage a purchase on a whim. Not now!

I'd seen the Leicaflexes in shops back when they were new, but the prices were so high I didn't even ask to see them. So now I get to have the pleasure.

Speaking of the effect digital bodies are having on the value of older lenses I have a wee tale to tell.

Back thirty odd years ago I went to the estate sale of an old photo studio in Wyandotte, MI. There were plenty of interesting items to be had including a large original Ansel Adams print of the cemetery at the Taos pueblo with a price on it of $10. As I walked across the shop to get it someone ran through the door and snatched it from in front of me. Needless to say I was a bit bummed and bought myself a little consolation item in the form of a Meyer 105mm f2.7 Makro Plasmat for $5. I used it as a paperweight for a long time without ever being able to find much information on the lens. Then one day I started finding "hits" on them on the net and it turned out the digital folks were buying them for the gorgeous "bokeh". I ended up selling it on ebay for enough to finance a Nikon D750 body, a few lenses and a camera for my wife in the bargain. Needless to say they are now going for about twice what I got for mine!

I got the resilvering done in London.UK and the cost was about $60CAN, including the return shipping. It took them a few months to get to it, but given it is scarcely my only camera I could still take pics.

 

Lens prices have taken a hike for sure. Many of them are going for much more than what they sold for back in the heyday of film on the 80s. All I can say is I'm glad i stocked up when I did. Same goes for a lot of things, LPs, turntables.... good to be ahead of the curve or an out-of-step Luddite (take your pic).

That sounds very reasonable. Can you tell me where that was, as I have an SL I’d like to treat to the same?

That sounds very reasonable. Can you tell me where that was, as I have an SL I’d like to treat to the same?

I'll look it up and post it. It is a little shop in London, UK. The only shortcoming is that they used aluminum rather than the original silver for the coating. I found reference to a place in Japan that does the silver, but nailing down contact info was elusive. Still, it looks good and the camera functions beautifully.

Same size as original Rollei 35 but much lighter.

Like its more expensive cousin maximum shutter is 1/500, but slowest is 1/30. At f 5.6 on the Triotar does a good job.

Sometimes and old and largely forgotten lens can fit the bill for svelte and light.

40mm f 3.5 Steinheil Munchen Cassaron in M42 mount

Manual diaphragm (before preset) and very compact. It has only three elements I found this one in box of old camera gear from the family camera shop. It had been in non climate controlled storage for over 15 years. Cleaned it up a bit and it worked fine,

on SRT 201 via M42 to Minolta MC adapter

I also used it a lot on my Fujica ST 605N.

Here's a shot taken with this lens on the Fujica

Spent years using a Topcon Super D, which definitely counts as "big and heavy". But needed digital compatibility, so now my preferred film camera is a Pentax LX, which is more on the "svelte and light" side. If I want autofocus, I can use the Pentax MZ-3, which is light (plastic fantastic). Of course now those many Pentax-A and Pentax-FA lenses are mostly used on a Pentax K-1 (not classic or manual), which is definitely on the "big and heavy" side.

I did a little work with a 4x5 Pony Premo No. 4 recently, which is "big and light". (But then there's the plate holders, film sheaths, magnifier, dark cloth, tripod, changing bag, and sheet film boxes.)

When I'm fine with large, heavy and battery dependent, I'll take my DSLR :-)

I do tend to small, light and mechanical film cameras. Rather than the Leicaflex SL/SL2, it's the R6 for me. It's probably not as good (and in fact not as good as the FM2n in my view, then again, not much SLRs are), but the R lenses make up for it. Though they also make up for any weightsaving - they're not exactly lightweight lenses.

For larger, and yet light: I'm liking the Yashica D more and more.